From my understanding, most forces that are conservative are of the form

$$\vec F = \hat i F(x)$$

Which means the force is only a function of one variable, which means the work done of the force in any direction $dr$ is independent of the path taken, as the integral is a function of $x$ only. For example, let $F(x) = x$, and $\vec {dr} = dx \hat i + dy \hat j$.

$$\therefore W = \int_{r_1}^{r_2}\vec F \cdot \vec dr = \int_{x_1}^{x_2}x\ dx \ + 0$$

$$W = \left[x^2/2\right]_{x_1}^{x_2}$$

So the work done only matters on the distance taken in only the direction along the force. However, is this force conservative?

$$\vec F = \hat i F(x) + \hat j F(y)$$

Let $F(x) = x$ and $F(y) = y$, then the work done is:

$$W = \int_{x_1}^{x_2} x \ dx + \int_{y_1}^{y_2} y \ dy $$

$$W = \left[x^2/2\right]_{x_1}^{x_2} + \left[y^2/2\right]_{y_1}^{y_2}$$

Here I think this is in indeed a conservative force because there is no integral with a function of a variable that isn't directly able to be integrated.

But, I think my lack of sureness with the previous statement above can be highlighted with the following example, where the next force I consider is not a conservative force.

$$F = \hat j F(x,y) = \hat j xy^2$$

$$W = \int_{y_1}^{y_2} xy^2\ dy$$

Here, the work done depends on how $x$ depends on $y$, which means the path taken does indeed matter.

(Note: I originally was going to want to express the work vector as a vector with component $\hat i$ instead of $\hat j$ to have an expression for work as $\int_{x_1}^{x_2} xy^2 \ dx$ and then $y$ would have to be expressed as a function of $x$ which sounds more intuitive to me but I wanted to do it this way to test my general understanding).

So am I right in implying that the force is only not conservative if any of the work integrals have a integral that is not expressed in terms of the differential of the variable, i.e integrating something like $xy^2$ in terms of $x$?

  • $\begingroup$ Not an answer, just a comment on coordinate systems. If you wrote your co-ords in spherical, with conservative force, would that resolve things? Based on the fact that there is a central force involved somewhere. $\endgroup$ – user171879 Oct 28 '17 at 14:51
  • $\begingroup$ I was thinking it might resolve whether if the force had two vector components it could still be conservative, as that is the same as saying $\vec {F_r} = \hat r F(r)$ $\endgroup$ – sangstar Oct 28 '17 at 14:52

The following are equivalent if the space is simply connected (no holes, one piece) and $U$ is not a function of time:

1. The force $\vec F$ is conservative.

2. $\nabla\times \vec F=0$

3. $W=\oint_\mathcal{C}\vec F\cdot\mathrm{d}\vec r=0\quad \forall\> \mathcal{C}$

4. $\vec F=-\nabla U$

Hope that it helps. (Might want to consider using another way than calculating integrals.)

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ That is true if the space is simply connected and if $U$ does not depend explicitly on time. $\endgroup$ – Diracology Oct 28 '17 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, but it is certainly the case in these simple examples. I edited my answer. $\endgroup$ – Soap312 Oct 28 '17 at 15:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The integral version (#3) is equivalent to others only if it vanishes over any arbitrary path/ contour. Since proving for an arbitrary path might prove tricky it is usually used to show that a force isn’t conservative by providing a contradicting example. $\endgroup$ – Yair M Oct 28 '17 at 15:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.